#16" WIDE LUMBER | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

paralleljulieverse · 6 years ago

Photo

When Gertrude Lawrence, as played by Julie Andrews, in Star! first arrives in America, a reporter asks her what she “most wants to see?” “Good notices, dear!” is her droll reply. Viewed in retrospect, it is a bitterly ironic exchange because American reviews of Star! were far from good. In fact, critical drubbing of the film was so pronounced it became a national news story unto itself. “Critics Belt Julie Andrews For Her Role in Star!” trumpeted a widely syndicated article published barely weeks after the film’s New York premiere. “Julie Andrews...has been all but dismembered by the critics for her performance as Gertrude Lawrence in Star!,” it proclaimed, with many reviewers taking “personal shots at her talent” (Scott: 4B).

Even allowing for journalistic hyperbole –– not all the film’s reviews were outright pans –– there is no denying that critical response to Star! in the United States was markedly antagonistic –– certainly, in comparison to the film’s international reception which, as profiled in earlier posts, was largely positive, even glowing. In point of fact, choice quotes from the film’s international raves were widely used in pre-release US advertising for Star! by a jubilant Twentieth Century-Fox convinced they had another Julie Andrews super-hit on their hands. “What happened to the film and the critics on the trip across the Atlantic God only knows,” a despondent Robert Wise would later bemoan (cited in Kennedy, 156).

North American reviews of Star! were not merely negative, they were characterised by a savagery that, even today, gives pause. Consider, for example, the following excerpts taken almost at random from print reviews across the breadth of the mainstream US press:

The Chicago-Tribune: A “2-hour and 45-minute, multimillion dollar Sleep-In…the highlight of which is the appearance of the closing credits” (Terry: 2-15). Newsweek: “Star! is not impossible to sit through but neither is a nice long funeral…The sets are tacky, the colour abysmal, the length––three hours and 10 minutes––unconscionable” (Morgenstern: 80). Time: “The production is a hollow, frantic caricature…The Character Assassination of Gertrude Lawrence as Performed by the Inmates of Madame Tussaud's” (“Cinema”: 124).

The Minneapolis Star: “Long stretches of Star! appear to have been developed in Listerine. Seldom has a movie been so anitiseptic and nasty...a singularly mean, catty, uncharitable film” (Altman: 9A).

Courier-Post: “Star! is like a hand-carved pure gold frame housing a black and white photograph of Harry S. Truman...In all its multi-coloured glory...it is pure glitter covering a dull, occasionally boring, almost three-hour long motion picture...that fails to live up to its advance reputation or its worth as a hard-ticket attraction (Petzold: 25). Detroit Free Press: “Like a fat, overdressed lady who lumbers around shooting off her big mouth, Star! is by turns offensive and boring” (Stark: 16-B). The Honolulu Advertiser: “A Lavishly Mounted Bore” (Harada: C6).

So hostile were many of these notices that more than one commentator has posited the presence of motivations beyond simple aesthetic evaluation. “Much of the harshness and seeming overkill” of American reviews of Star!,” argues Dennis Bingham (2010), “can be attributed to the intense animosity of the ‘film intelligentsia’ toward The Sound of Music and its immense success....[R]eviewers of Star! appear to have been lying in wait for the fat target of Andrews-Wise-Twentieth Century Fox to present itself” (275; see also Monaco: 133).

The Sound of Music had of course attracted its share of sneering reviews three years earlier but it had been able to secure ultimate vindication through record-breaking triumph at the box office. Star!, alas, would not follow suit with American audiences proving almost as unwelcoming to the film as American critics. From the outset, ticket sales for Star! were alarmingly sluggish. The film did fair business in its opening week or two in the major cities, largely on the back of advance ticket bookings, but “grosses immediately started plummeting during the weeks that followed” (Chaplin: 239). Many sessions played to well below capacity houses, especially at crucial weekend performances where tickets were priced at a premium (Canby: D1; Kennedy: 156; Stirling: 211). In fact, early receipts for Star! were so poor that Fox resorted to giving falsely inflated box office figures to Variety in a vain effort to paint a rosier picture of the property’s failing fortunes (“Revised Estimates”: 9).

It’s not difficult to understand the studio’s panic here. In 1968, Hollywood was a town in crisis. Sitting on the brink of one of the worst recessions to hit the film business since the 1930s, the American film industry was beset by massive economic instabilities and wholesale structural change (Cook: 71ff). The market for big roadshow family fare was oversaturated beyond sustainability and the complexion of American moviegoing was in radical flux (Thomas: 17). Small youth-oriented and iconoclastic social realist films like The Graduate (1967) Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and Easy Rider (1969) were the new order of the day and, almost overnight, splashy musicals and other big screen spectacles were deemed woefully out-of-fashion. Fox was especially susceptible to these volatile shifts as, more than any other studio, its production schedule was heavily invested in big roadshow product (”20th Century Has Big Film Backlog”: IV-10; Getze: III-14). The studio’s previous roadshow offering, Doctor Dolittle (1967), had been a crushing failure and, with several other expensive roadshow projects still in the pipeline, the tepid response to Star! created plenty of white-knuckles in the front office (Silverman: 126ff ).

In early-December, newly appointed Head of Sales and Marketing at Fox, Peter S. Myers –– one of a raft of executive staffing changes occasioned by the industrial turmoil at the studio –– decided to abandon the exclusive metropolitan roadshow strategy for Star! and hastily released the film to 34 additional theatres in the last two weeks of December (“‘Star!’ Spreading Out”: 3). A new advertising campaign was “rushed through for Star!’s...out-of-town dates” and was also used to “replace current promo spots” in big city venues where the film was “already playing” (“Revised Estimates”: 9). The revised campaign which was orchestrated by Myers trialed a range of disparate marketing approaches in a bid to maximise the film’s reach with adverts that framed Star! as everything from a madcap comic romp à la Thoroughly Modern Millie to a dark romantic female melodrama starring “a different kind of Julie Andrews”. At the same time, Myers printed more than 20,000 brochures with a special endorsement of the film from the President of the MPAA applauding the film as wholesome family entertainment which were sent to “elected motion picture councils, educators, librarians, editors, clergy, organisational and community leaders, civic officials and women’s clubs” (“‘Star!’ Receives”: 3).

Not surprisingly, these wildly disjunctive efforts failed to drum up substantial interest and, by January 1969, reports both inside and outside the industry were murmuring that Fox had another Dolittle-sized “flop” on its hands (Edmands: 11; Thomas: 17). Fearing the problem might be the film’s 3-hour running time, the studio ordered 20 minutes of cuts to Star!, much to director Robert Wise’s chagrin (Edwards: 74; Kennedy: 155). Worse still, rather than recall the prints for professional re-editing, Fox simply issued a list of suggested cuts to exhibitors to be implemented by theatre staff, resulting in widespread confusion, jarring jumps, and mangled prints (Edwards: 75).*

With Star! struggling at first-run theatres across the nation –– and in some cases closing prematurely after only a few weeks –– Fox pushed the film into general release at the start of April with continuous screenings at so-called “grind” houses –– second and third-run theatres and drive-ins. The general release was accompanied by yet another revised advertising campaign that promised moviegoers “Unbelievable Julie...at Regular Prices!” Even with the lure of discounted tickets, Star! failed to secure additional traction and, by June, it was estimated the film had totalled less than $3 million in domestic ticket sales against a $14 million budget (Holston, 220).

By this stage, newspapers were openly declaring Star! “a big fat failure at the box office...a loser all over the country” (Kelly: 4-B). In a highly publicised interview first printed in The Los Angeles Times in June, Richard Zanuck –– Head of Production at Fox and son of legendary studio chief, Daryl –– called Star! “our Edsel”, after the infamous Ford car marque that bombed so spectacularly it became popular shorthand for an extreme marketing flop. Star!, Zanuck lamented is “a failure of enormous proportions” that “has me staying up at nights.” “You’re bound to get the shakes when a slick, first-class Julie Andrews picture flops and it makes us very nervous,” he exclaimed, “There are no guarantees anymore. Star! is not a great picture but it’s not so bad as to do the rockbottom business it’s been doing. Hopefully, we’ll learn from it. So far we’ve learned that no one is infallible –– not Julie, not Bob Wise and not the studio.” (Warga: 22).

As if to prove just how lumberingly fallible the studio could still be, Fox gambled on a last ditch salvage effort born of sheer and utter desperation. On July 1, the studio officially withdrew Star! from American distribution after the film had played only 1,000 of its scheduled 8,000 engagements ("20th Withdraws”: 3). In what was described as “another of the bold distribution ideas” masterminded by Peter S. Myers, it announced Star! would undergo "an arduous reconstruction process” in which the film’s running time would be edited down by a full third with several plot strands and musical numbers excised. The revised film would then be re-released later in the year under a new title (Heffernan: 16). “Basically, the idea is to make a new pic out of an old one,” Myers explained, adding that the studio’s research department was doing widespread “testing to find the right audience for the pic” and to choose the right title, with Gertie Was a Lady deemed “the likeliest choice” ("20th Withdraws”: 3).

The idea of recutting a film and giving it a new identity for re-release was not entirely unprecedented in Hollywood history, but it had typically been reserved for minor B-grade properties and, even then, usually only after a hiatus of several years. Seldom had the strategy been trialed on such a high-profile film at the time of its original release. But such was the level of panic and irrational decision-making in Hollywood at the time. Not surprisingly, the film’s cast and crew were aghast but were powerless to do anything. Robert Wise remained diplomatically evasive in public press comments but, privately, he asked Fox to remove his production credit from the reissued version (Edwards: 75). Julie Andrews was more forthcoming: “I think [it] is terrible,” she said flatly, “I hope they will not try to fool the people into thinking it’s another movie..What went wrong with Star!? I don’t really know. It certainly wasn’t for lack of effort” (“‘Star!’ Tries Again”: 32).

As part of background testing for the re-release, Fox engaged the services of N.T. Fouriezos & Associates, a New York-based market research company specialising in media demographics. Their research indicated that Julie Andrews biggest fans were females aged between 12-17 and 30-49 who prized the star for her “warm” and “lovely” image and who most wanted to see Julie in a “happy, true to life musical” (”No More Sexy Songs”: 124). Undaunted by the fact that Star! was far from this kind of film, Fox set about refashioning a new image for the property that reflected the sunny feel-good musical that fans supposedly wanted. Gone was the initial alternative title of Gertie Was a Lady in favour of Those Were the Happy Times which offered a clearer evocation of heartwarming nostalgia. The theme of joyous uplift was further stressed in a chorus of advertising taglines that sounded for all the world like warmed-up leftovers from marketing for The Sound of Music:

When Everyone Was Singing a Happy Song... When a Girl Wasn’t Afraid to Show Her Heart... When All the World Was This Lady’s Stage... Those Were the Happy Times!

Fox even commissioned Howard Terpning, the celebrated artist who had designed the iconic key art for The Sound of Music, to create new graphics for the rechristened pic. The revised Terpning poster art featured a beaming long-haired Julie clutching a basket of flowers amidst a rainbow-coloured montage of gaily dancing couples, people riding bicycles, and even children playing leapfrog. Like a chirpy love-child of My Fair Lady and The Sound of Music, it did indeed appear to be the ideal Julie Andrews tunefest!

However, even with radical cutting, Star! was never going to fit easily into that kind of sugary mould. When Those Were the Happy Times (“formerly entitled STAR!”) was quietly released to theatres on 1 October, 1969 –– Julie Andrews’s birthday, ironically –– it caused nothing so much as head-shaking derision. Most papers refused to review it –– “I’m not going back to see the watered down version,” one critic declared, “I wasn’t happy with Star! and there’s no reason to expect a happier ending with Those Were the Happy Times” (Wedman: 29) –– and the few that did remained wholly unimpressed.

“Those Were the Happy Times [is] one of those musicals you’d really like to see make it, but one of those that couldn’t go no matter what was done ––including changing the name...There are even times, due to editing after changing the name probably, that you forget [it] is a musical because in one part at least 30 minutes lapse between two songs...and when the big productions come you get the feeling you’re watching a re-run of something akin to Esther Williams in Skirts Ahoy” (Perry: 20).

“The severest loss is the sense of style, which the Robert Wise-Saul Chaplin production once possessed....The original version [had] a well-crafted script and was so finely edited — even today some of the transitions are breathtaking in their execution — that one easily sees the gaping holes in plot and in style, due to the hacking-away in the editing room. The feeling for the times and the atmosphere of the first forty years of this century, which created the ambiance for the drama, has been truncated ruthlessly (Clein: 15).

Released principally to suburban and provincial theatres, probably on the assumption that audiences there wouldn’t have seen the original version, Those Were the Happy Times did worse business than Star! In Sheboygan, Wisconsin, the local newspaper reported that at the film’s “first big night...there were a total of 10 people in the theatre...: a ticket seller, a ticket taker, a manager, a popcorn girl, a projectionist, two Sheboyogan Press reviewers, and three (3) paying customers,” earning the theatre a grand total of “$1.05. Less expenses, of course” (”Sad Start”: 34). In Moberly, Missouri, the local theatre even took out a desperate advertisement in their paper that read:

“HELP –– HELP (A Notice from the 4th Street Cinema) The movie currently showing at the Cinema is titled Those Were the Happy Times –– What a joke! Nothing could be further from the truth. We had 4 people at the theatre on Wednesday night and 6 on Thursday and these are the “Saddest Times” we’ve ever seen. Where are all the people who want good family entertainment?” (4th Street Cinema: 5).

Fox’s injudicious gambit not only failed to pay off financially, it was a PR disaster that cemented public perception of Star! as an irredeemable failure and earned the film an unfair reputation for years to come as “an unmitigated disaster…synonymous with the word ‘bomb’” (Silverman, 131).

Notes:

* The only retrospective silver lining here is that, because these edits were made to release prints rather than the original negative of Star!, the latter remained safely intact in studio vaults, thus enabling the film’s latter-day rerelease in complete form. This serendipitous outcome would not be enjoyed by many other roadshow films of the era –– The Alamo (1960), Gypsy (1962), It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963), Major Dundee (1965), etc. –– where original negatives were cut and excised material lost.

Sources:

4th Street Cinema Advertisement. Moberly Monitor-Index. 6 December 1969: 5.

“20th Century Has Big Film Backlog.” The Los Angeles Times. 29 December 1967: IV-10.

“20th Studies ‘Star!’ as Wise Film Title.” Film and Television Daily. 25 July 1969: 1.

“20th Withdraws Star!” Variety. 16 July 1969: 3.

Altman, Peter. “’Star!’ Rated ‘Antiseptic, Nasty’.” Minneapolis Star. 22 November 1968: 9A.

Bingham, Dennis. Whose Lives Are They Anyway?: The Biopic as Contemporary Film Genre. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2010.

Canby, Vincent. “Is Hollywood in Hot Water?” The New York Times. 9 November 1969: D1,38.

Chaplin, Saul. The Golden Age of Movie Musicals and Me. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994.

Clein, Harry. “Review: ‘Those Were the Happy Times’.” Entertainment World. 7 November 1969: 15.

“Cinema: Lawrence/Tussaud.” Time. 8 November 1968: 124.

Cook, David A. Lost Illusions: American Cinema in the Shadow of Watergate and Vietnam, 1970-1979. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.

Edmands, Michael J. “The Business Front: Celluloid Jungle; Competition Has Grown Fiercer in the Movie Business.” Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly. 49: 4. 27 January 1969: 11, 23-27.

Edwards. T.J. “The Saga of STAR!, Part 2.” Movie Collector’s World. 357. 30 November 1990: 74-75.

Getze, John. “Fox Reports Lower Earnings.” The Los Angeles Times. 13 March 1969: III-14.

Harada, Wayne. “A Lavishly Mounted Bore: Julie Doesn’t Shine in ‘Star!’” Honolulu Advertiser. 20 December 1968: C6.

Heffernan, Harold. “Star Bomb Recalled for Reconstruction.” The Pittsburgh Press. 29 July 1969: 16.

Holston, Kim R. Movie Roadshows: A History and Filmography of Reserved-Seat Limited Showing, 1911-1973. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Co, 2013.

Kelly, Herb. “For Julie Andrews: One Flop, One Big Hit.” The Miami News. 22 July 1969: 4-B.

Morgenstern, Joseph. “Movies: Foolish Girl.” Newsweek. 4 November 1968: 80.

Monaco, Paul. The Sixties: 1960-1969 (History of the American Cinema #8). Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.

“No More Sexy Songs for Gertie; Fox Re-Edits Julie to Please Fans.” Variety. 10 September 1969: 2, 124.

Perry, Dale. “At the Movies: ‘Those Were the Happy Times’.” The Greenville News. 25 October 1969: 20.

Petzold, Charles. “’Star’ is More Glitter than Gold.” Courier-Post. 15 November 1968: 25.

“Revised Estimates.” Variety. 18 December 1968: 9.

“Sad Start for ‘Happy Times’.” The Sheboyogan Press. 18 December 1969: 34.

Scott, Vernon. “Critics Belt Julie Andrews For Her Role in Star!” Times Recorder. 17 November 1968: 4B.

Silverman, Stephen. The Fox that Got Away: The Last Days of the Zanuck Dynasty at Twentieth Century-Fox. Secaucus, N.J.: Lyle Stuart, 1988.

“‘Star!’ Receives Big Plug Via Brochure of MPAA.” Film and Television Daily. 23 December 1968: 3.

“‘Star!’ Spreading Out”. Film and Television Daily. 17 December 1968: 3.

“‘Star!’ Tries Again With New Name.” The San Francisco Examiner. 8 December 1969: 32

Stark, Susan. “’Star!’––Julie as Glamorous Gertie.” Detroit Free Press. 14 November 1968: 16B.

Stirling, Richard. Julie Andrews: An Intimate Biography. London: Portrait, 2007.

Terry, Clifford. “Wise’s ‘Star!’ Lacks Luster.” Chicago Tribune. 7 November 1968: 2-15.

Thomas, Bob. “Roadshow Movies Are Slipping in Hollywood.” Daily Times. 20 January 1969: 17.

Warga, Wayne. “It’s Nail-Biting Time at 20th Century-Fox.” The Los Angeles Times. 15 June 1969: C1,C22.

Wedman, Les. “Cassius-Rocky Fight Film is Super Secret.” The Vancouver Sun. 20 January 1970: 29.

#julie andrews #Star!#star!50 #fiftieth anniversary #Robert Wise #Twentieth Century Fox #1968 #musical #old hollywood #classic film #film advertising #film history #gertrude lawrence

12 notes · View notes

longscience · 2 years ago

Text

1x2 actual size

1X2 ACTUAL SIZE FULL

The weight (pcf) calculated above, divided by 1728 and multiplied by 99, gives the weight in pounds (lbs) of one foot of HemFir 2圆. How much does a 2圆 weigh?Ģ×6 has final dimensions of 11/2 inches by 51/2 or 99 linear centimeters per foot.

1X2 ACTUAL SIZE FULL

1 x 2 is three quarters by one and a half inches in full size, or 19 millimeters by 38 millimeters. 2 x 6 is one and a half inches by five and a half inches or 38 millimeters by 140 millimeters. Actual size: x ( x ) Weight: bezel radius. What are the actual dimensions of a 1x4?ġx4 board. For example, two times four, one time six and other combinations of these numbers. Standard wood dimensions are one by two and two by two inches by twelve inches wide. While the standard nomenclature used to refer to dimensional lumber may be considered a measure of actual size, it is not. For orders that exceed the above can be shipped in multiple packages for small volumes or can shipped via Freight carrier contact us for freight shipping quote & volume discounts.What is the actual size of dimensional lumber?įor example, in the United States, some commonly used wood sizes are 2 x 4 inches (cm x cm) and 2 x 6 inches (cm x cm), also known as 2x4 and 2圆.Please place cut sizes in order notes, we will contact you to confirm your order. We can cut down sheets to meet the above guidelines to the sizes of your choice. For orders of 300ft or more they can be shipped Freight in your choice of 8′ or 16′ lengths contact us for freight shipping quote & volume discounts Plywood Following UPS guidelines we can ship up to 150lbs per package with outside dimensions equal or less than: Length (in) + 2x Width (in) + 2x Height (in) = less than 130".Orders under 300ft will be shipped in multiple packages. Following UPS guidelines we can ship up to 150lbs per package with outside dimensions equal or less than 95″ x 8″ x 8″.For orders that exceed the above can be shipped in multiple packages for small volumes or can shipped via Freight carrier contact us for freight shipping quote & volume discounts.Following UPS guidelines we can ship up to 150lbs per package with outside dimensions equal or less than: Length (in) + 2x Width (in) + 2x Height (in) = less than 130" 20bf or more can be shipped at a maximum length of 94".If you need longer lengths an additional $25.00 fee will apply. 20bf or less will be shipped at a max length of 46".You may provide your own carrier.įor over sized loads and large quantities please contact Cherokee Wood Products Customer Service for the most accurate shipping rate. We reserve the right to change shipping carriers to provide you the lowest shipping rate available. Please contact Cherokee Wood Products for more details. Please contact Cherokee Wood Products for shipping quotes to AK, HA & Canada.Īdditional charges apply for shipping to PO Boxes & APO/FPO/DPO. Multiple purchases can be combined for lower shipping rates. All orders will ship will 48hrs based on stock and availability.Īll stocked items typically ship within 2-3 business days after purchase. You can also place instructions in the order notes box at checkout. These White Oak Dimensional Lumber pieces are solid hardwood. * White Oak by the piece maybe sawn up to +/- 1/16″ of size listed. The sapwood is white to light brown.Ĭlick here for complete grading details in the NHLA Handbook. The texture is medium to coarse with open straight grain. White Oak has heartwood that can vary in colour from light tan to dark brown. * Contact Us if you need custom sizing, we are happy to meet your project’s needs. The wood plans, turns, bores, sands, stains and polishes well. It’s almost waterproof and has exceptional resistance to wear. Lengths: Sale of 2 feet required. * We can ship it in lengths up to 8 feet.Ĭustomers can specify length requests in the order notes during checkout. These pieces are S4S machined milled (surfaced on all 4 sides cut to width and length).Īvailable Thicknesses: 1/8in | 1/4in | 1/2in | 3/4in Our White Oak Dimensional Lumber is cut to exact sizes lists. Scroll Saw Wood and Thin Wood Boards for Crafts.Hardwood Flooring Transitional Mouldings.

#1x2 actual size

0 notes

amercuryinleo · 5 years ago

Text

Hemp Will Save Our Planet

Planting billions of trees across the world is by far the cheapest and most efficient way to tackle the climate crisis. So states a July 4 article in The Guardian, citing a new analysis published in the journal Science. The author explains:

As trees grow, they absorb and store the carbon dioxide emissions that are driving global heating. New research estimates that a worldwide planting programme could remove two-thirds of all the emissions that have been pumped into the atmosphere by human activities, a figure the scientists describe as “mind-blowing”.

For skeptics who reject the global warming thesis, reforestation also addresses the critical problems of mass species extinction and environmental pollution, which are well documented. A 2012 study from the University of Michigan found that loss of biodiversity impacts ecosystems as much as climate change and pollution. Forests shelter plant and animal life in their diverse forms, and trees remove air pollution by the interception of particulate matter on plant surfaces and the absorption of gaseous pollutants through the leaves.

The July analytical review in Science calculated how many additional trees could be planted globally without encroaching on crop land or urban areas. It found that there are 1.7 billion hectares (4.2 billion acres) of treeless land on which 1.2 trillion native tree saplings would naturally grow. Using the most efficient methods, 1 trillion trees could be restored for as little as $300 billion — less than 2 percent of the lower range of estimates for the Green New Deal introduced by progressive Democrats in February 2019.

The Guardian quoted Prof. Tom Crowther at the Swiss university ETH Zürich, who said, “What blows my mind is the scale. I thought restoration would be in the top 10, but it is overwhelmingly more powerful than all of the other climate change solutions proposed.” He said it was also by far the cheapest solution that has ever been proposed. The chief drawback of reforestation as a solution to the climate crisis, per The Guardian, is that trees grow slowly. The projected restoration could take 50 to 100 years to reach its full carbon sequestering potential.

A Faster, More Efficient Solution

Fortunately, as of December 2018 there is now a cheaper, faster and more efficient alternative — one that was suppressed for nearly a century but was legalized on a national scale when President Trump signed the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. This is the widespread cultivation of industrial hemp, the non-intoxicating form of cannabis grown for fiber, cloth, oil, food and other purposes. Hemp grows to 13 feet in 100 days, making it one of the fastest CO2-to-biomass conversion tools available. Industrial hemp has been proven to absorb more CO2 per hectare than any forest or commercial crop, making it the ideal carbon sink. It can be grown on a wide scale on nutrient poor soils with very small amounts of water and no fertilizers.

Hemp products can promote biodiversity and reverse environmental pollution by replacing petrochemical-based plastics, which are now being dumped into the ocean at the rate of one garbage truck per minute. One million seabirds die each year from ingesting plastic, and up to 90 percent have plastic in their guts. Microplastic (resulting from the breakdown of larger pieces by sunlight and waves) and microbeads (used in body washes and facial cleansers) have been called the ocean’s smog. They absorb toxins in the water, enter the food chain, and ultimately wind up in humans. To avoid all that, we can use plastic made from hemp, which is biodegradable and non-toxic.

Other environmental toxins come from the textile industry, which is second only to agriculture in the amount of pollution it creates and the voluminous amounts of water it uses. Hemp can be grown with minimal water, and hemp fabrics can be made without the use of toxic chemicals.

Environmental pollution from the burning of fossil fuels can also be reversed with hemp, which is more efficient and environmentally friendly even than wheat and corn as a clean-burning biofuel.

Hemp cultivation also encourages biodiversity in the soil, by regenerating farmland that has long been depleted from the use of toxic chemicals. It is a “weed” and grows like one, ubiquitously, beating out other plants without pesticides or herbicides; and its long tap root holds the soil, channeling moisture deeper into it. Unlike most forestry projects, hemp can be grown on existing agricultural land and included as part of a farm’s crop rotation, with positive effects on the yields and the profits from subsequent crops.

A Self-funding Solution

Hemp cultivation is profitable in many other ways — so profitable that it is effectively a self-funding solution to the environmental crisis. According to an April 2019 article in Forbes titled “Industrial Hemp Is the Answer to Petrochemical Dependency,” crop yields from hemp can range from $20,000 to $50,000 per acre. Its widespread cultivation can happen without government subsidies. Investment in research, development and incentives would speed the process, but market forces will propel these transformations even if Congress fails to act. All farmers need for incentive is a market for the products, which hemp legalization has provided. Due to the crop’s century-long suppression, the infrastructure to capitalize on its diverse uses still needs to be developed, but the infrastructure should come with the newly opened markets.

Hemp can break our dependency on petrochemicals not only for fuel but for plastics, textiles, construction materials and much more. It has actually been grown for industrial and medicinal purposes for millennia, and today it is legally grown for industrial use in hundreds of countries outside the US. Before the US ban, a 1938 article in Popular Mechanics claimed it was a billion-dollar crop (the equivalent of about $16 billion today), useful in 25,000 products ranging from dynamite to cellophane. New uses continue to be found, including eliminating smog from fuels, creating a cleaner energy source that can replace nuclear power, removing radioactive water from the soil, and providing a very nutritious food source for humans and animals. Cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive derivative of hemp, has recently been shown to help curb opioid addiction, now a national epidemic.

Hemp can also help save our shrinking forests by eliminating the need to clear-cut them for paper pulp. According to the USDA, one acre planted in hemp produces as much pulp is 4.1 acres of trees; and unlike trees, hemp can be harvested two or three times a year. Hemp paper is also finer, stronger and lasts longer than wood-based paper. Benjamin Franklin’s paper mill used hemp. Until 1883, it was one of the largest agricultural crops (some say the largest), and 80 to 90% of all paper in the world was made from it. It was also the material from which most fabric, soap, fuel and fiber were made; and it was an essential resource for any country with a shipping industry, since sails were made from it. In early America, growing hemp was considered so important that it was illegal for farmers not to grow it. Hemp was legal tender from 1631 until the early 1800s, and taxes could even be paid with it.

Banned by the Competition?

The competitive threat to other industries of this supremely useful plant may have been a chief driver of its apparently groundless criminalization in the 1930s. Hemp is not marijuana and is so low in psychoactive components that it cannot produce a marijuana “high.” It was banned for nearly a century simply because it was in the same plant species as marijuana. Cannabis came under attack in the 1930s in all its forms. Why? Hemp competed not only with the lumber industry but with the oil industry, the cotton industry, the petrochemical industry and the pharmaceutical industry. Many have speculated that it was suppressed by these powerful competitors.

William Randolf Hearst, the newspaper mogul, owned vast tracts of forest land, which he intended to use for making wood-pulp paper. Cheap hemp-based paper would make his forest investments a major money loser. Hearst was a master of “yellow journalism,” and a favorite target of his editorials was “reefer madness.” He was allied with the DuPont Corporation, which provided the chemicals to bleach and process the wood pulp used in the paper-making process. DuPont was also ready to introduce petroleum-based fibers such as nylon, and hemp fabrics competed with that new market.

In fact hemp products threatened the whole petroleum industry. Henry Ford first designed his cars to run on alcohol from biofuels, but the criminalization of both alcohol and hemp forced him to switch to the dirtier, less efficient fossil fuels that dominate the industry today. A biofuel-based infrastructure would create a completely decentralized power grid, eliminating the giant monopolistic power companies. Communities could provide their own energy using easily renewable plants.

None of this is new news. Hemp historians have been writing about hemp’s myriad uses and its senseless prohibition for decades. (See e.g. The Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer, 1992; Hemp for Victory: A Global Warming Solution by Richard Davis, 2009.) What is news is that hemp cultivation is finally legal across the country. The time is short to save the planet and its vanishing diversity of species. Rather than engaging in endless debates over carbon taxes and Silicon Valley-style technological fixes, we need to be regenerating our soils, our forests and our oceans with nature’s own plant solutions.

0 notes

mariacedano-blog-blog · 7 years ago

Link

Interior Design Ideas Seeing and being inspired by interior design means not only that you are open to new ideas but also that you are learning something from them. Today’s post should bring plenty of inspiration if you’re planning a renovation, a new construction or simply want to dream a little. I think you’re in the right place for that! Interior Design Ideas: Follow @HomeBunch on and on Interior Design Ideas Gated modern farmhouse with gravel driveway, custom barn wood gate, black steel windows and metal roof. Holder Design Associates. Metal Roof Modern Farmhouse Backyard & Architecture: This roofing is made by Metal Sales, standing seam in “Mystique Plus” color. The builder used it for its universal color, which goes with most any wall color scheme. This modern farmhouse is about 6,200 square feet. Holder Design Associates. White Farmhouse Kitchen This white farmhouse kitchen features a pale gray kitchen and bleached ceiling beams. Beams are rough cedar and then white/grey washed. Backsplash tile is from Louisville tile. Artisan Signature Homes. Breakfast Nook Beautiful breakfast nook with custom banquette and custom window treatment. Artisan Signature Homes. Kitchen Island White kitchen features dark hardwood floors, zinc hood, Bianco carrara backsplash tile and black steel window. Countertops are honed Calacatta Gold marble with an cove ogee edge. Forte Building Group LLC. Windows Windows are Integrity Wood-Ultrex Casement windows from Marvin. They come with a bare pine interior and a pre-finished clad exterior in a variety of colors. This home chose bronze as the exterior color, bronze hardware, and the builder chose to stain the interior of the wood window sashes. Forte Building Group LLC. Timeless White Paint Color Timeless White Benjamin Moore Paint Color: Benjamin Moore Simply White. Grey front door paint color is Farrow and Ball Plummet. The floors are white oak stained in Rubio Monocoat Smoke 5%. Fox Group Construction. Shades of Gray Kitchen features pale gray perimeter cabinets and blue gray kitchen island. Square Footage Inc. Navy Farmhouse Kitchen Paint Color The kitchen paint color is Benjamin Moore HC-154 Hale Navy in a satin semi gloss finish. Holder Design Associates. Subway Tile Subway tile backsplash is a Waterworks tile – Grove Brickworks field tile in Sugar White. Lighting is custom. Holder Design Associates. Dining room Expansive dining room with custom wine cellar. Lighting is custom. Holder Design Associates. Barn Wood Shiplap Wine Cellar Farmhouse wine cellar with barn wood shiplap paneling, steel sash doors, concrete countertops and reclaimed barn wood cabinets. Holder Design Associates. Lumber Beams The ceiling beams are custom-treated, distressed lumber. The builder found a craftsman who brushed wired the lumber because finding reliable sources of barn wood timbers was becoming difficult. The custom plate bracketing is cut plate steel treated, again with a custom process. Holder Design Associates. Barn Wood Fireplace Paneling Living room features Barn wood clad fireplace with exposed rafters and collar ties. Holder Design Associates. Wall Paint Color Wall paint color is Benjamin Moore Iron Mountain. Leslie Harris-Keane Interior Design. Ceiling & Trim Paint Color Ceiling and trim paint color is Benjamin Moore Swiss Coffee. Decor: Chairs are Lee Industries. The sisal rug and coffee table are from Restoration Hardware. Pillow fabric is Betwixt, Schumacher and the zebra rug is HD Buttercup. Lighting is from Pottery Barn. Leslie Harris-Keane Interior Design. Wet Bar Wet bar features reclaimed brick wall, custom chunky 100-year barnwood shelves, white marble countertop and white shaker cabinets. Leslie Harris-Keane Interior Design. Navy, Brass & Plaids Navy Cabinet Paint Color: Benjamin Moore Hale Navy. Fox Group Construction. Laundry room This farmhouse laundry room features glazed brick backsplash tile, crisp white quartz countertop, wide plank hardwood floors and burlap Roman shade. Disc Interiors. Thomas J. Story Photography. Blue Gray Laundry room Laundry room features blue gray cabinets and a farmhouse sink flanked by a pair of gray washer and dryer. Countertop is white quartz and backsplash is a patterned cement tile. Artisan Signature Homes via @gretchenblack. Laundry room Flooring The laundry room tile is American Olean – Historic Bridge 6″ x 36″ – Old Hollow Floor Tile. Folding table is a custom piece from Wood Works Custom in Nashville. Lighting is Feiss, Hobson Collection. Dimensions: The washer & dryer wall is 16′-10″ and the window wall is 11′-0″ Forte Building Group LLC. Mudroom Tile Mudroom features a neutral floor tile. Tile is Portland White natural stone in Versailles pattern. Holder Design Associates. Grey Bathroom Cabinet Grey Benjamin Moore Paint Color: Benjamin Moore Shadow. Holder Design Associates. Crisp White Subway Tile Bathroom features shower and half wall subway tile. Tile is from Filmore Clark in West Hollywood, CA. Disc Interiors. Shower Inspiration I am loving the floor and the quartz tower in the middle of the shower with the mitered corners. Artisan Signature Homes. Landing Area Artisan Signature Homes. Greyhouse Design. Dreamy Bedroom Paint Color Soothing Bedroom Paint Color: Sea Salt by Sherwin Williams. Artisan Signature Homes. Bedroom Chandelier Lighting is Made Goods Patricia Chandelier. Artisan Signature Homes. Pinnable Paint Colors & Color Palettes Best White Paint Colors: Soft Whites: Benjamin Moore White Dove. Restoration Hardware The Right White. Benjamin Moore Simply White. Warm Whites: Restoration Hardware Mediterranean White. Benjamin Moore Swiss Coffee. Sherwin Williams Shoji White. Via Jamie Belessa. Home Exterior & Gardens Exterior features custom steel sheets and painted brick. Disc Interiors. Modern Beach House Modern beach house with wood siding. Disc Interiors. Board & Batten Farmhouse Paint Color Paint Color: Benjamin Moore 2134-30 Iron Mountain. Holder Design Associates. Classic Shingle Home Artisan Signature Homes. Porte-cochère Design Artisan Signature Homes. Farmhouse Patio Farmhouse Patio with outdoor kitchen under pergola, seating area and string lighting. Patio flooring is red brick and slate tile. Torrey Pines Landscape Co. Inc. Photo by Martin Mann Photography. Quote of the Week Posts of the Week @middlesisterdesign: Beautiful Homes of Instagram. Tuesday: Ranch-style Beach House Interior Ideas. Wednesday: Transitional Modern Farmhouse Kitchen Design. Thursday: Modern French Chateau Style Custom Home Design. Latest Interior Design Ideas: Latest: New & Fresh Interior Design Ideas for your Home. More Interior Design Ideas: More Interior Design Ideas on Home Bunch. Trending on Home Bunch: Interior Design Ideas – a weekly series on Home Bunch. Popular on Pinterest: Interior Design Ideas. Popular on Home Bunch: Beautiful post featuring a collection of Farmhouse Interior Design Ideas. Follow Home Bunch on Pinterest, Facebook and Instagram. You can follow my pins here: Pinterest/HomeBunch See more Inspiring Interior Design Ideas in my Archives. Popular Paint Color Posts: The Best Benjamin Moore Paint Colors 2016 Paint Color Ideas for your Home Interior Paint Color and Color Palette Pictures Interior Paint Color and Color Palette Ideas Inspiring Interior Paint Color Ideas Interior Paint Color and Color Palette New 2015 Paint Color Ideas Interior Paint Color Ideas Interior Design Ideas: Paint Color Interior Ideas: Paint Color More Paint Color Ideas Hi everyone! I felt devastated with what happened in Houston this week and I can’t tell you enough how much I feel for all of those brave people. I even mentioned on my Instagram how special Texas is for me… I have met so many wonderful readers and clients from that state and I am honestly praying for all of you there. I know you’re tough but most of all you have shown the world how kind you are with each other. This is a lesson the world was in so much need to see. Kindness and love overcomes any difficult time. You have taught us this. Have a Blessed week, my friends. with Love, Luciane from HomeBunch.com Interior Design Services within Your Budget Come Follow me on Come Follow me on Get Home Bunch Posts Via Email Contact Luciane Sources: 1st image: Fox Group Construction.

0 notes